Creating Meaningful Change In The Practice Of Inclusion ... - CiteSeerX

Creating Meaningful Change In The Practice Of Inclusion: Barriers And Solutions

Daniel J. Boudah Texas A&M University

Jan E. Hasbrouck Texas A&M University

Abstract Many short-lived attempts to change school practices have overlooked the importance of addressing educator belief systems. The movement toward increased inclusion of children with disabilities into general education classrooms and the accompanying need for increased collaboration may be another such case. In order for educators to effectively collaborate, they first need to coconstruct a shared vision of that process. A rationale for this requirement is presented, along with a successfully field-tested process for helping teachers and administrators engage in authentic, enduring, and effective collaborative partnerships.

Increasingly, students with disabilities are being served in general education classrooms for a significant portion of the entire school day (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). The presence of these students usually adds considerable variance to the overall composition of classes, and thus increases the demands on teachers regarding planning and delivering instructional services (Lenz, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1991; Schumm et al., 1995). The movement toward serving students with disabilities in more inclusive settings is being fueled by a number of social, financial, political, and philosophical influences within as well as outside of the field of education, most of which embrace the value of collaboration (e.g., Senge, 1990; Thurow, 1992; Toffler, 1990). For example, the post-industrial workplace is being transformed from a

place where most tasks are completed in isolation to a setting in which more tasks are completed by people working together in well-orchestrated teams (Deming, 1992; Thurow, 1992; Toffler, 1990). Additionally, as financial resources at the federal, state, and local government levels in the U.S. dwindle concurrently with the escalation of the number of students in special programs and the accompanying costs, schools are faced with the significant financial burden of providing more specialized and expensive services. Consequently, combining and integrating services for students with disabilities within general education programs is being viewed as a potentially more cost-effective option for meeting the increased diversity of today’s student population (Hales & Carlson, 1992). As in the business community, integration of services in schools also necessitates the collaboration of those assigned to work, in this case, with students who have disabilities. In order for collaboration to occur, collaborating partners should have a shared vision of the process. Unfortunately, the term collaboration may connote different things for different people, particularly for those in general and special education. The focus of this commentary, therefore, is on the importance of addressing belief systems when attempting to facilitate inclusion through increased educator collaboration. More specifically, by building a shared vision, belief systems can be addressed and the process of coconstructing innovations or solutions to existing problems can more feasibly result in real and lasting change in inclusion practices. The Relationship of Change in Practice to Change in Beliefs Attempts to change existing educational practices may address any of three broad areas: (a) teaching approaches and/or materials, (b) systems variables such as the structure and culture of the schooling system, and (c) educator beliefs. Historically, when change in educational practice has been discussed, it has most often referred to the introduction of new teaching approaches and/or materials; that is, what Cuban (1993) called incremental change. Recently, more attention has been given to the second area, the importance of addressing structural and cultural influences on classrooms as well as entire school systems (e.g., Fullan, 1991; Rosenholtz, 1991; Schumaker & Deshler, 1988; Skrtic, 1991). Less attention, however, has been devoted to the importance of addressing beliefs, particularly among teachers and administrators. For example, in the last 20 years in particular, educational change agents have introduced schools to various learning strategies that have been proven empirically to help low-achieving and other students more successfully learn content in general education classrooms (Palincsar & Brown, 1986; Pressley et al., 1992; Schumaker & Deshler, 1992). Without sufficient support of strategy instruction (e.g., planning and reflection time), teachers may inadequately teach learning strategies and then witness minimal or no student improvement in content knowledge. Concurrently, with the accountability systems of local, state, and federal education agencies emphasizing and affirming the importance of simply covering more content, teachers then deprioritize or even dismiss learning strategies and return to familiar practices (Boudah, Knight, & McBride, 1997; Schumm, Vaughn, Gordon, & Rothlein, 1994). The net result is the abandonment of instructional change and the reinforcement of existing school practices and system support for content coverage. Regarding collaboration among special and general educators, specifically, many professionals have written about barriers to collaboration (Johnson, Pugach, & Hammittee, 1988), developing collaborative relationships (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989), identifying and using problem-solving strategies (Salisbury, Evans, & Palombaro, 1997), increasing collaborative skills and roles (Friend & Cook, 1992), and even ways for educators to get together to meet or plan (Walter-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996). While such topics are important and efforts to address them worthwhile, without adequately addressing belief systems, such instructional service efforts may not be meaningful or sustainable for the participants. Results from recent research on teacher thinking and planning for students in inclusive secondary classes illustrates the critical and complex nature of beliefs and their relationship to change efforts. From several years of individual and focus group discussions, in addition to numerous observations of secondary social

studies and science teachers in inclusive classrooms, Lenz, Bulgren, and Boudah (1992) identified a number of important teacher beliefs that differed when expressed publicly and personally, and further differed from actual classroom practices. For instance, a publicly expressed belief of teachers was, "I should meet with special teachers who can help me teach these students [with disabilities]." The personal belief, however, was, "I do not have time to meet with teachers about all these students." The associated classroom practice was, "If there is a real problem, the special teachers can seek me out and I will try to help." These example statements illustrate that teacher beliefs are a crucial variable in facilitating change in practice (Pajares, 1992). Therefore, any attempts to change existing practice, particularly with regard to inclusion efforts, must attend to both practice and beliefs (Behar-Horenstein, Pajares, & George, 1996; Quinn, 1996). Mental Models to Concrete Co-Construction Changing classroom practices through the introduction of different materials and/or methods obviously implies a need for retooling, time, financial support, and other resources. Beliefs, however, are tougher to address. Belief systems often are not explicit, discussed, or even understood, but buried deep within each person at the level of unstated assumptions (Fullan, 1991; Mahoney & Patterson, 1992). As previously noted, personal beliefs also may not coincide with those that are expressed, and differ from those expressed in actions (Lenz, Bulgren, & Boudah, 1992). Mahoney and Patterson (1992) noted that all learning and knowing involves processes beyond conscious knowledge. They referred to these processes as deep structures. Deep structures include one’s core beliefs and tacit knowing. Senge (1990) referred to these structures as mental models, deeply held internal images or pictures of how the world works, sometimes also referred to as paradigms. Mental models limit us to familiar ways of thinking and acting, and determine how we make sense of the world and take action. Mental models regarding collaboration clearly exist, and more important to this discussion, certainly vary among practicing general and special education teachers as well as administrators (Boudah, 1996; Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996). Recognizing and publicly acknowledging existing and varying mental models is thus a critical step toward building a shared vision (Senge, 1990), and ultimately cultivating change in a school’s inclusion practices. A shared vision among the members of a team reflects the variety of personally-held visions and does not imply identical pictures of what should be. It is not a solution or set of solutions, but an agreed upon set of guiding ideas for how change should proceed and the direction it should take (Senge, 1990). Moreover, shared vision implies the building of a mutual paradigm and common ownership and commitment to a collaborative ethic (Phillips & McCullough, 1990). The history of school practices clearly illustrates the fact that one cannot simply present or prescribe changes in instructional or systemic practices for educators (Cuban, 1993). This often leads, at best, to changes without roots that soon wither and die. According to Senge (1990), building a shared vision inevitably leads to the question: What do we want to create? Through a collaborative process, participants can then co-construct a plan for change, design its appearance, and then become partners in implementing concrete change. Being co-constructive means that all teachers or participants have input into any planning or training, and throughout the entire decision and changing-making process. If teachers are expected to change their practices, then soliciting, listening to, and responding to their reactions, thoughts, and needs is critical to their ownership of the change (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992; Fullan, 1991; Lenz, Boudah, & Bulgren, 1994; Snyder, Bolin, & Zumwalt, 1992). Thus, co-construction is engaging in a win-win situation with all participants involved in the change in practice (Covey, 1989). It encourages teachers to use their educational imaginations (Eisner, 1985) to adapt innovation to their circumstances, yet preserve the principles and key ingredients of the shared vision and practice. A Field-Tested Process for Co-Constructing Successful Collaboration

How could a team of teachers and/or administrators who are interested in building and maintaining a collaborative relationship easily and practically acknowledge mental models, build a shared vision, and begin to co-construct change in the practice of inclusion? One successful activity has utilized a small set of guiding questions that prompt teachers and/or administrators involved in collaborative work to reflect on their beliefs, share their ideas and concerns, and create realistic changes within their sphere of influence (Boudah, 1996). The activity can be conducted with a large or small group of teachers, administrators, or both. A consultant, or lead teacher or administrator who is not a direct participant, may lead the activity. It may be initially completed in one hour or more, during after school or inservice hours. The activity may be particularly helpful if first conducted at the beginning of the school year, with participants revisiting the process and outcomes again during the year (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). Participants are presented a series of five questions, either verbally or in written form, one at a time. The questions are: 1. What are some key words or phrases that come to mind when you think about your past or current teacher collaboration experiences in inclusive classes? 2. What are the common categories into which these key words or phrases fall? That is, are there words or phrases representing each of your collaboration experiences that you have in common or are similar? 3. Picture an inclusive classroom situation involving teacher collaboration that was ideal or existed "in the best of all worlds." What does that vision or picture of collaboration look like? What key words or phrases do you associate with that new vision? 4. fall?

What are the common categories into which these new key words or phrases

5. With regard to your past or current teacher collaboration experiences, what changes could you realistically make so that your past or current reality could become more like your ideal vision for in inclusive classes? By addressing Question 1, participants recognize and acknowledge their mental models regarding past or current inclusive classroom situations involving teacher collaboration. Question 2 focuses on building a common understanding of past or current teacher collaboration. Question 3 prompts teachers to recognize and acknowledge their expectations regarding what collaborative work should look like. Question 4 asks participants to begin building a shared vision for future collaboration. The last question requires the participants to co-construct realistic solutions or interventions that may improve upon past or current teacher collaboration experiences. To start, participants listen to or read the first question. Then, for the next few minutes, each writes individual responses. Teachers are encouraged to reflect upon co-teaching and/or consultation experiences. Administrators should reflect on those same personal experiences and/or experiences observed in their buildings. To the entire group, participants then voluntarily voice any or all of their phrases or key terms regarding past or current teacher collaboration experiences. All responses are written on a posterboard, overhead projector transparency, or chalkboard. For example, responses may include "takes time," "lots of needs," "not sure what to do," and a couple dozen additional words and phrases. Together, participants then address the second question by analyzing and discussing the cumulative list of phrases or key words, identifying similarities or relationships among the ideas listed, and creating common categories. The category names represent the perceptions of experience across teachers or administrators and are written down. Not all responses to the first question may fit within a category that is created.

Category names might include "More Planning Time Needed," "Diverse Student Needs," or "Undefined Roles." In the same manner as Question 1, participants next write individual responses regarding the ideal teacher collaboration situation prompted by Question 3. Following that, teachers or administrators voluntarily voice any or all key words or phrases, and a cumulative list is created. Example responses might include "small classes," "good behavior," "enough planning time," "both teachers involved," and many other ideas. Like the second question, participants then analyze the cumulative list of phrases or key words and create common categories; for example, "Small Class Size," "Students are Cooperative," "Weekly Planning Time," or "Both Teachers Teach." Also similar to Question 2, categories represent common visions and are written down. Again, not all responses may fit within the created categories. In Question 5, participants are asked to jointly problem-solve in order to improve upon past or current situations, and importantly, to focus on characteristics of situations that are within their immediate control or authority to influence. Some items may be outside the participant’s influence and/or imply the actions of others not involved in this co-construction process. These other items should not be the focus of attention in this part of the activity. Therefore, teachers or administrators should look at the list of characteristics of an ideal situation and decide which items they can immediately address or act upon. For instance, if planning time was a need addressed in the first two questions and additional staff support was included in the ideal situation, participants should focus on developing solutions that might include ideas such as exchanging noninstructional duties with another teacher or delegating them to a paraprofessional, in order to free up additional planning time among collaborating teachers. Teachers and administrators should not spend their energy trying to address, for example, additional funding or class size issues that may be outside their immediate sphere of influence. Later, participants still may choose to pursue issues that necessitate the involvement of others, but again, the focus of the last part of the activity is to empower participants to make changes themselves and to direct attention to areas involving collaborative teamwork where improvements can be implemented immediately. Field-tests of this activity, along with continued staff development efforts, have produced promising results. Teachers and school administrators have constructed written action plans that address authentic and sustainable solutions for improving collaboration in inclusive classrooms (Boudah, 1996; Boudah, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1997). One associated benefit of participating in this process is overcoming the barriers of isolation imposed by unshared expectations, beliefs, and concerns. That is, teachers often privately consider problems and goals regarding inclusion and teacher collaboration with little or no opportunity to share them with their team member(s). This may be a typical and particularly acute situation in schools where special and general education collaboration has been imposed on colleagues who do not have an established relationship. Teachers faced with that kind of experience have said that participating in the described activity was, for instance, "good therapy" and "a relief." In one particular situation, a teacher simply cried while sharing her perceptions of collaboration because she was finally unburdened from her privately held concerns, and comforted that her teaching partner shared several similar perceptions that were previously unspoken. Clearly, much of the success of this one activity is dependent on the honesty and commitment of the participants. Implications and Conclusion Administrators and teachers may well discover that the investment of time to participate in activities like the one presented here may pay bigger dividends in the classroom than spending larger quantities of time and other resources involved in traditional staff development, team planning, or other efforts that are frustrating, unenduring, and that are not cost-effective (Boudah & Mitchell, 1998). The kind of activity previously described is an important first step toward building meaningful change that results in collaborative and inclusive schools. There is still no substitute for responsive professional development for educators and facilitative leadership, and there are no short cuts worth the cost of eliminating ongoing collegial follow-up and support (Fullan, 1991, Showers, Joyce, & Bennett, 1987). Moreover, where addressing interpersonal issues and building a shared vision are continuous processes, authentic and lasting

school change can become even more attainable (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Wasley, Hampel, & Clark, 1997). The roots underlying school and instructional practices must be addressed in order to make substantive change in classrooms, including collaborative teaching practices for implementing inclusive education. Authentic and sustainable growth in actions or practices extend from the roots of change in beliefs. Many educational reforms, initiatives, or changes have quickly withered because they addressed only the surface of educational practice–methods and materials (Cuban, 1993), rather than teachers’ and/or administrators’ beliefs and subsequent commitment to change (Behar-Horenstein et al., 1996). Therefore, in order to promote collaborative efforts in support of inclusion, educators must invest in recognizing mental models, building shared visions, and co-constructing change among administrators, teachers, parents, students, or other stakeholders. Only in doing so will educators have opportunities to realize the ideals in Pryzwansky’s (1974) definition of collaboration: (a) mutual consent on the part of professionals to work together, (b) mutual commitment to resolving a shared problem or set of problems as well as objectives for resolving the problem(s), (c) joint development of an intervention plan, (d) mutual responsibility for implementation and evaluation of that plan, and (e) a shared responsibility for the outcomes of the intervention. One cannot just decide or be told to "do collaboration" or "do inclusion" as an alternative form of service delivery or educational practice; it takes a shared focus and commitment in which barriers of beliefs can become solutions for improvement. References Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J.J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 17-22. Behar-Horenstein, L.S., Pajares, F., & George, P.S. (1996). The effect of teachers’ beliefs on students’ academic performance during curriculum innovation. The High School Journal, 79(4), 324-332. Boudah, D.J. (1996, March). Co-teaching to support responsible inclusion: The lessons we’re learning. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Association International Conference, Dallas, TX. Boudah, D.J., Knight, S.K., & McBride, R. (1997, March). Becoming a student of teaching through university/school research collaboration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Boudah, D.J., & Mitchell, V.J. (1998). The real thing. Journal of Staff Development, 19(3), 43-47. Boudah, D.J., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an effective option for secondary inclusion? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(4), 293-316. Covey, S.R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught. New York: Teacher College Press. Deming, W.T. (1992). The new economics for industry, education, government. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Eisner, E.W. (1985). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaborative skills for school professionals. New York: Longman. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at risk. Journal of Educational Research, 86(21), 70-84. Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school? New York: Teacher College Press.

Hales, R. M., & Carlson, L.B. (1992). Issues and trends in special education. Lexington, KY: Federal Resource Center for Special Education, University of Kentucky. Johnson, L.J., Pugach, M.C., & Hammittee, D.J. (1988). Barriers to effective special education consultation. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 41-47. Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J., & Boudah, D. (1992, October). Research on how regular secondary teachers plan for inclusion and individualization. Paper presented at the Council for Learning Disabilities Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO. Lenz, B.K., Boudah, D.J., & Bulgren, J.B. (1994, April). Reflections on four years of studying planning in the face of academic diversity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1991, April). Planning in the face of academic diversity: Whose questions should we be answering? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Mahoney, M.J., & Patterson, K.M. (1992). Changing theories of change: Recent developments in counseling. In S.D. Brown & R.W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 665-689). New York: J. Wiley & Sons. Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teacher beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. Reading Teacher, 39, 771-777. Phillips, V., & McCullough, L. (1990). Consultation-based programming: Instituting the collaborative ethic in school. Exceptional Children, 56, 291-304. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J.L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 551-553. Pryzwansky, W.B. (1974). A reconsideration of the consultation model for delivery of school-based psychological services. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 44, 579-583. Quinn, R.E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leaders within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rosenholtz, S.J. (1991) Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Teacher College Press. Salisbury, C.L., Evans, I.M., & Palombaro, M.M. (1997). Collaborative problem-solving to promote the inclusion of young children with significant disabilities in primary grades. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 195-209. Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1988). Implementing the regular education initiative in secondary schools: A different ballgame. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(1), 36-42. Schumm, J.S., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & Rothlein, L. (1994). General education teachers’ beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1), 22-37. Schumm, J.S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L.. & Saumell, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children, 61(4), 335-352. Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for future study and stateof-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77-87. Skrtic, T.M. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver: Love Publishing. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402-435). New York: Macmillan. Thurow, L. (1992, April 26). A new kind of world war. Kansas City Star, pp. 1-8.

Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift. New York: Bantam Publishing. U.S. Department of Education. (1997). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Nineteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Office of Special Education Programs, Washington, DC. Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Meyers, H., & Nevins, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 29-45. Walter-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4), 255-cover 3. Wasley, P., Hampel, R., & Clark, R. (1997). The puzzle of whole-school change. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(9), 690-697.